Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[webmasterworld.com...]
The poor advertiser has been trying to filter out the site with negative keywords to no avail.
IMHO, the thread offers a good illustration of why advertisers need more control over where their ads appear--even if that control is as simple as a "block by domain" filter like the one that publishers already have.
I think that there are some issues for Google to be concerned about though. If they give advertisers a complete list of where the ads are run then there is the potential of cutting out the middle man. I don't know if this would be a big issue or not but it is certainly a concern.
Google wouldn't have to give advertisers a list of where their ads are running. Google could simply let advertisers make include/exclude decisions based on their professional judgment and whatever referrer information they're already getting.
In categories that are subject to abuse, or where there's a lot of low-quality traffic, advertisers might prefer the "whitelist" approach. (Thanks for introducing that term, Gethan!)
In categories where quality or fraud aren't of major concern, advertisers might prefer "blacklists" of the occasional sites they'd like to avoid. The decision on whether to use a whitelist or blacklist would be left to each advertiser.
Such include/exclude filters would be easy to implement (they're just variations on the existing publisher filter), they wouldn't require major conceptual or structural changes to AdSense, and they wouldn't require that Google give away any secrets. As for bypassing the middleman, that's more likely to happen with the network as it exists now, because advertisers who aren't happy with the quality they're getting (or who are worried about fraud) have no choice but to deal directly with publishers.
CTR Range: 1.0% - 2.0%
Impressions: 5,000 - 9,999
Period Covered: A 5-day period from past 10 days
I like this. TCLA does this but in an automated way so the advertiser just puts in their campaign goals when they create it. So using the numbers above if the advertiser wanted a CTR of 5.0% over a 5k impression time frame then the campaign would automatically be stopped on that particular site because it didn't meet the criteria. Makes things easy.
JAG
I want to earn more revenue from my google ads, therefore, I want them to be better targeted to my visitors so that they will click more (I have a highly targeted audience but have not yet been able to get the ads to match my content as well as I think they should).
As an advertiser I would want to know my ads are being served to the best match possible.
Why then, as advertisers, can we not do more than block particular url's? I am STILL getting 10% ads served to me in german when my members are 99% Australian and English speaking. All I can do is block a url when I see it come up but not an entire block such as ".de".
I also get a disproportionate % of ".co.uk" ads served when in fact .com US based ads would suit my users better.
I guess somebody at google decided that Australia was more aligned to the EC than the US. Maybe we are culturally but the exchange rates and postage costs make the US much more attractive buyers.
In terms of measuring conversions that's another statistics that I think could be shared in qualitative terms. I'm not sure what wording on the qualitative descriptions should be, but it could be done or percentage ranges could be shown, but they'd need to be adjusted for the particular site or sector so that they're not too exact.
This isn't to address anything you said, but is to address some things said earlier in this threead - I don't think cutting Google out as the middleman is as big of a concern as some believe. If a publisher site gets a lot of visits and page views for pages/users relevant to an advertiser and the advertiser has an existing trusted 3rd party tracking system then it may be a concern. But only a small percentage of advertisers and even a smaller percentage of publishers probably fit the bill meaning this is only a concern for a small percentage of possible publisher-advertiser combinations. Besides, most of the major affiliate systems and advertiser's direct systems are CPL (sale, action, whatever) based or CPM based, not CPC based. So cutting out the middleman would likely mean going from a CPC system which pays for leads (hopefully most of which are qualified) to an arrangement that is more of a pure affiliate arrangement and they're really two different things. If an advertiser wants to setup their own CPC arrangement with a publisher I think both sides will find out pretty quickly the value of Google's AdSense system. Besides, advertisers can already strike up affiliate deals with publishers and publishers can already contact publishers and both can still have a relationship through AdSense. I have affiliate links to a number of advertisers whose ads show on my site via AdSense. It's just two different ways of generating a lead.
I don't think cutting Google out as the middleman is as big of a concern as some believe.
I agree, in part because ads that do best in AdSense are targeted to the content of individual pages, not to the theme of a site as a whole.
By aggregating relevant pages and impressions from many different sites, Google's AdSense network makes it practical for advertisers to buy ads for "Shelbyville hotels" or "Norwegian handknit widgets"--and at the same time, it makes it practical for publishers to sell space on the minority of their pages that are related to those topics. Without such aggregation by Google, relationships between those advertisers and publishers wouldn't be worth the hassle in many, if not most, instances.
AdwordsAdvisor is on the case see [webmasterworld.com...] the offending site was an online mapping site "no need to actually post the url here, but I think it is pretty easy to figure out who we are talking about here"
I hate to see publishers big or small get in trouble, but if the traffic had 0% conversion I guess the program is not a good match.
